B 20004 F GW ISSN 0001 - 0545 BULLETIN OF THE ANTIBOLSHEVIK BLOC OF NATIONS ON THE DEATH OF OLENA ANTONIV The news cut through the heart with a knife. They have killed Olena Antoniv, Mrs. Olena, Olenka. She was neither a poet, nor an artist, nor a composer. She did not write poetry. She did not compose music. She herself was music, a living melody of kindness and friendship in a savage empire of evil and cruelty. Because of this, the stupid, the cruel, the evil and the savage hated her. And they have killed her. Family, friends, the city of Lviv, the adornment of which was Olena Antoniv, have been left orphans. Together with all those persecuted for honesty in and outside Ukraine w'e are in deep sorrow, bidding farewell today... to yet another broken melody. Olena Antoniv and son Taras Svyatoslav Karavansky and Nina Strokata Munich, February 7, 1985 USSR News Brief issued the following: On February 4, in the Ukrainian city of Lviv, Olena Antoniv was killed in a car accident. Mrs. Antoniv, who was the wife of former political prisoner and poet Zinoviy Krasivsky, was very active in the framework of the Fund to Aid Political Prisoners and for this was strongly attacked in the Soviet mass media. On February 6, in Lithuania, the priest of the Cathedral of Rudamina Jozas Zdebskis was also killed in a car accident. J. Zdebskis, aged 57 was ordained a priest in 1952. In 1978 he became one of the founders of the unofficial Catholic Committee to Defend the Rights of Believers. The authorities masterminded a series of provocations against Rev. Zdebskis in order to force him to stop his activities. It is not known if there are any suspicious circumstances relating to Rev. Zdebskis’ death in the car accident. In November 1981, Rev. Bronius Laurinavicius, a member of the Lithuanian Helsinki Group, was pushed under a lorry by four unknown men in Vilnius and died of his injuries. This was not regarded as an accident among Catholics in Lithuania. (Too often, car accidents involve individuals who are under the attack of the authorities behind the Iron Curtain.— ed.) Verlagspostamt: München 2 January-February 1986 Vol.XXXVII No. 1 CONTENTS: Hon. John Wilkinson. M.P. (Great Britain) The European Response to the Challenge of SD I.................................................. 5 Gen. John K. Singlaub (USA) Disinformation and Nicaragua............................ 10 Mr. Bertil Hdggman (Sweden) Views on EFC/ABN Support for Freedom Fighters Worldwide.............................................. 18 Prof. Leo Magnino (Italy) The Value of the Nationalities and the Future Position of Russia in Europe................................ 23 Mr. Arie Vudka (Israel) Weaknesses of the Soviet Russian Empire.......... 27 Press Statement of the ABN/EFC Conference .. 32 Global Strategy.................................................... 34 Special Resolutions Passed at the ABN Congress...................................................... 37 Two Conferences — There is an Alternative .... 39 US Greetings to the ABN/EFC Conference .... 41 Yosyp Terelya’s Letter to his Family.................. 43 Book Reviews........................................................ 46 Postage Stamps from the Underground.............. 48 j§ j^nfcopjmmmcp Publisher and Owner (Verleger und In­ It is not our practice haber): American Friends of the Anti- to pay for contributed materials. Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (AF ABN),. Reproduction permitted but only 136 Second Avenue, New York, N. Y. with indication of source (ABN-Corr.). 10003, USA. Annual subscription: Zweigstelle Deutschland: W. Dankiw, 18 Dollars in the USA, and the equivalent Zeppelinstr. 67, 8000 München 80. of 18 Dollars in all other countries. Editorial Staff: Board of Editors. Remittances to Deutsche Bank, Munich, Editor-in-Chief: Mrs. Slava Stetsko, M.A. Filiale Depositenkasse, Neuhauser Str. 6, 8000 M unich £0, Zeppelinstr. 67/0 Account, No. 30/261 35 (ABN). West Germany. Articles signed with name or pseudonym Schriftleitung: Redaktionskollegium. do not necessarily reflect the Editor’s o- Verantw. Redakteur Frau Slava Stetzko. pinion, but that of the author. Manuscripts Zeppelinstraße 67/0. 8000 München 80, sent in unrequested cannot be returned in Telefon: 4825 32. case of non-publication unless postage is Druck: Druckgenossenschaft „Cicero“ e.G. enclosed. Zeppelinstraße 67, 8000 München 80. Yaroslav Stetsko, ABN President LETTING ABN CHANGE THE RESULTS OF WWII TO AVOID HAVING TO FIGHT WWIII Each of the century’s world wars has been fought by one set of imperial powers in order to weaken or eliminate competing imperial powers. The first war produced ambiguous results. The second produced a crown winner — Soviet Russia. Why might those historical points interest the members of this conference? The answer involves the recognition of six further points. 1. Soviet Russia won the war because it pursued a ruthless policy of divide and conquer before and during the war. 2. The outlines of the policy were clearly formulated as early as 1920 by Lenin. Hon. Yaroslav Stetsko 3. Throughout the period, the West turned a strange, blind eye to Moscow’s schemes. 4. Russia’s victory has allowed it to extend its boundaries immeasurably in the last forty years, leaving it in our times on the brink of realizing its imperial dream — world conquest. 5. The West, as a consequence of its blindness, faces the do or die prospect of a third world war. 6. To avoid such a scenario, the West must recognize the name of ABN and help ABN finish the program that it evoked during the Second World War —the dismemberment of the Soviet Russian empire through national liberation struggles. The first point needs some elaboration. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, the “imperial” map was unclear. Four powers remained intact — France, Great Britain, Russia and Japan. Two no longer existed — Ottoman Turkey and Austria-Hungary. One was in distress, but not quite out of the picture — Germany. Within this framework, Russia took its first steps towards forcing a new struggle for power. In the West, Moscow launched a two-sided offensive. On the one hand it began covertly aiding the weakened Germany against the stronger France and Great Britain. On the other hand, by training German officers on Soviet Russian occupied territories, it coyly used its Comintern agents to foment a “popular front” against rising German Nazism. In the East, Moscow moved in a similar vein. It quite clearly winked at Japanese expansionism — seeing such growth coming at the expense of the Asian interests of Great Britain, France and the upstart Americans. At the same time, it began an effort to set up its ally Mao Tse-tung in China. 1 By the late 1930’s, Russian initiatives were slowly paying dividends. Hitlerite Germany was effectively bullying both France and Great Britain in Europe; the Japanese were doing the same in Asia. Furthermore, the Japanese invasion of China was benefiting Mao immensely. With this in mind, Russia undertook a second step —overt alliance with Nazi Germany. The signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 was no simple coincidence. It was part of a well oiled scheme — one which immediately bore fruit. Without firing a shot, Russia was able to gobble up western Ukraine, the Baltic States and western Byelorussia. Moreover, within the next year, France collapsed and Great Britain was reduced to near terminal enfeeblement. Moscow and its reigning Red czar Stalin came in for a surprise in June, 1941. Their erstwhile friend Hitler struck before a time anticipated. But ironically, all turned out for the best for the Bolsheviks. Comintern agents had done their propaganda homework well. Russia was welcomed by the newly embattled Americans and the long bedraggled English as “comrades” in the fight against the “damned Nazis”. Ukraine proclaimed its independence in 1941 against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. OUN and UPA fought against these two enemies. In 1943, the ABN was formed to resist the Nazis in the eastern lands occupied by them. But, with a clear eye for the future, the ABN also called for a war against Moscow’s Bolshevik empire. For just a short time, Churchill seemed to sympathize with the position of ABN. He even contemplated opening a southern front in the Balkans to keep the Russians from overrunning it. But after Teheran, after the Roosevelt -Stalin lovefest, such plans were deemed impolitic. I M B B E! A.B.M.-E.F.C. CONFERENCE Hon. Y. Stetsko delivering his address at the ABN/EFC conference banquet in London, November 24, 1985. By 1945, as Germany collapsed, Russia’s divisions swamped Eastern and Central Europe. In places, Russia allowed the Nazis to do its dirty work for it — wipe out the Warsaw risings. Worse yet, at Yalta, the West agreed to let Russian armies linger in Eastern and Central Europe after the w ar— until the so called “free elections” were held. 2 In the East, Russia smartly let America take on the brunt of the war. The United States, worried about the million casualties that might result from the invasion of Japan, ended up bombing the Nippon empire into submission. As Japan was reeling from such blows, the Russians in the last weeks of the war, simply walked into Northern Korea, the Kurile Islands, South Sachalin and outer Mongolia. Having captured such strategic points, Moscow was in a good position to support Mao in his impending push for power in China. The end of the war helped consolidate the Russian victory. The West made rash move after rash move. While the West played around with the United Nations, demilitarized Japan and Germany, and resented any use of its “nuclear monopoly” advantage, Stalin was busy making new inroads: — moving on northern Iran, — subversion in Greece, Turkey, France and Italy, — helping Mao topple Chiang in China. Only in Korea, did the West finally recognize the dangers of Muscovite imperialism. Even then, it saw only compromise — a status quo.